Category: Ethics, research methods and data gathering

Extending action research through a participatory and phenomenological approach

Watching the Caroline Lenette talk on Participatory Action Research (PAR) really opened my eyes to the concept of PAR as a framework for collaboration, reflexivity, and change. This resonates deeply with me as a learning designer and researcher. Both PAR and phenomenological research centre on lived experiences. While PAR emphasises collaboration and participatory agency, phenomenology provides a lens for deeply understanding the subjective experiences of individuals.

To explore students’ perceptions of psychological safety, I adopted a mixed-method approach. This helps me combine the qualitative depth of phenomenological research with the practical insights gained from participatory action research (PAR), alongside quantitative tools such as questionnaires. Together, these methods will help me develop a comprehensive understanding of how students experience and navigate psychological safety in online arts education.

Action research, with its emphasis on reflection, change, and addressing real-world problems through iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, remains my foundation. But, by incorporating participatory action research (PAR) and phenomenology, I hope to build on this ethos to suit the needs of my project.

PAR helps me foster collaboration and participant agency (where I as the researcher have to recognise my privileges, biases, and responsibilities), while phenomenology focused understanding on students’ lived experiences. Together, these approaches ensure my research remains reflective, responsive, and attuned to the complexities of psychological safety in online arts education. And, I hope will help me professionally think more critically about how course design influences their willingness to share creative work.

---

The ethics of PAR

PAR centres on co-researchers, fostering relationships built on trust and shared decision-making. It challenges rigid research structures, acknowledging that research is often “messy” but no less meaningful. Lenette (2022) emphasises that meaningful participation must be designed into the project from the start, requiring time, effort, and deep engagement to ensure co-researchers exercise agency and that outputs are community-driven. This approach aligns with my goal of addressing students’ perceptions of psychological safety in online learning environments, aiming to amplify their voices and translate findings into actionable insights for educational practice.

Taking inspiration from one of our Wednesday cross-programme event series by Mallika Kanyal, I decided, given the limitations of my ARP and following the advice given by Mallika, to focus on specific elements of PAR that I can work into my project, rather than attempting to design and run an entire participatory action research project which would not be feasible given the time constraints. By being honest about these constraints and working collaboratively within them, I hope to honour the spirit of PAR.

---

I’ve adapted PAR principles to fit the scope and resources available. Here’s how:

Acknowledging my positionality

I started by reflecting on my own positionality, writing a positionality statement that situates me within the research. This reflexive practice aligns with phenomenological principles, recognising that my own experiences and perceptions inevitably shape how I interpret participants’ stories.

This includes recognising the privileges I bring to the project, as well as the power dynamics at play when interacting with participants. This reflexivity is a cornerstone of PAR, ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the process.

Encouraging participant agency

While I can’t fully co-design the research with participants due to time constraints, I am integrating opportunities for students to share their experiences in ways they feel most comfortable. This aligns with phenomenology’s emphasis on understanding the meaning participants ascribe to their experiences, ensuring that their perspectives remain central to the research. This includes offering options for anonymous contributions, balancing the ethical complexities of anonymity with the need to ensure participants feel safe. I am also offering students a choice of completing a questionnaire or taking part in an interview.

Prioritising lived experiences

PAR, ‘privileges the active involvement of people with lived experiences of the topic as co-researchers to generate new knowledge and act on findings to improve their lives.’ I believe this methodology is essential for my research as it aligns with my commitment to ensuring participants’ psychological safety. Moreover, allowing participants to be co-researchers means they will be ‘feeling valued through the opportunity of sharing perspectives on problems and solutions,’ (Lenette, 2022) which further supports their wellbeing throughout the research process.

A trauma-informed approach

Inspired by Lenette’s emphasis on trauma-informed practices, I am mindful that some students may bring stories of vulnerability or discomfort when asked about moments where they might have felt psychologically unsafe in an online learning environment. By creating spaces where participants feel supported and not forced to take part, I aim to mitigate potential harm while ensuring their voices remain central to the project. This approach draws on phenomenology’s focus on the complexity and depth of individual experiences, allowing for a deeper understanding of how participants navigate vulnerability in online learning environments.

Conclusion

PAR invites us to embrace complexity, challenge traditional power dynamics, and prioritise relationships and process over rigid outcomes. Combined with phenomenological principles, this approach allows for a nuanced exploration of how psychological safety is experienced by students and shaped by course design. Together, these methodologies create a framework for ethical and meaningful research that aligns with my values as a learning designer. While not strictly following a traditional action research framework, my methodology remains rooted in its core principles: reflection, collaboration and meaningful change. Incorporating participatory and phenomenological elements allows me to address the complexities of psychological safety as both a lived experience and a design outcome, ensuring responsiveness to the needs of students in online arts education.

By embedding these principles into my ARP, I hope to contribute not only to a deeper understanding of psychological safety but also to actionable insights that can help shape more inclusive and transformative online learning environments.
As Lenette reminds us, PAR is not about achieving perfect results but about creating meaningful, ethical engagement. By incorporating even small elements of this approach, I hope to move closer to a research practice that aligns with my values and empowers participants to share their voices safely and authentically.

References

Kanyal, M. (2024) Benefits and challenges of PAR in HE student research. Online presentation, University of the Arts London, delivered via Blackboard Collaborate, 27 November.

Lenette, C. (2022) Participatory action research: ethics and decolonization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

As I mentioned in my action plan, but wish to emphasise here: My project focuses on psychological safety. It is essential, therefore, that my ethical approach reflects this, ensuring that my participants feel safe and supported throughout the research process.

I’ve written more about how I wish to achieve this in my Reflecting on research methods blog post and also within the ethical action plan itself.

Ethical action plan

I’ve uploaded both versions of my ethical action plan, to show the progression and thought process change between the two. My tutor John’s comments were invaluable to me as I widened my considerations and added in further details highlighted in yellow, based on his comments. One of the key feedback points was looking at the ‘crit’ as an ‘inherited institutional form of sharing – blending performance and ritual, power and cultural capital, vulnerability and an (often tacit) pedagogy’. (O’Reilly, 2024). I want to explore this idea of tacit pedagogy and whether (or how) it translates into online learning.

One of John’s suggestion was to incorporate visual elicitation (be it photo or object) in interviews, allowing participants to express their perceptions of psychological safety through photo or object prompts or perhaps asking them to bring or make something that articulates or expresses ‘feeling safe’. I love this idea and think that this concept is definitely worth exploring and while it might not be feasible to do during my interviews with student due to time constraints – I’d like to find a way to include it in my practice as a learning designer when it comes to designing activities in which students are asked to share.

Data collection methods

While exploring research design approaches, I found Creswell’s (2023) central questions for mixed methods particularly helpful in structuring my methodology.

• What knowledge claims are being made by the researcher (including a theoretical perspective)?
• What strategies of inquiry will inform the procedures?
• What methods of data collection and analysis will be used?

1. Knowledge claims

I think my approach is a constructivist one where knowledge is co-created through shared experiences and shaped by the social, cultural and digital environments in which we operate. My goal is to explore how students experience psychological safety within online learning spaces and to understand how this impacts their willingness to share creative work. I’m also cautious not to hide behind theory. As Nyemba and Mayer (2017) caution, academic researchers can sometimes become disconnected from the realities of their co-researchers and community partners. To avoid this, I want to keep my research grounded in the lived experiences of the students I work with, ensuring their voices remain central throughout. This is one of the main reasons I have opted to use semi-structured interviews.

2. Strategies of inquiry

As student voice is central to my project, it made sense to me to adopt a phenomenological approach as my research strategy.

3. Data collection methods and analysis

Researchers may first survey a large sample of individuals, and then follow up with a few of them to obtain their specific language and voices about the topic. In these situations, the advantages of collecting both closed-ended quantitative data and open-ended qualitative data prove advantageous to best understand a research problem.

Creswell (2023),p. 22

As the topic and area of psychological safety is new to me, I’d like to adopt an open, exploratory approach (qualitative) which is also one that does not assume variables (quantitative). For this reason, I will be adopting a mixed methods design.

Mixed-methods approach

Qualitative approaches prioritise understanding individual experiences, using open-ended methods like interviews and narratives to capture rich, contextual insights. On the other hand, quantitative approaches focus on measurable data, using tools like surveys to test hypotheses or identify trends.

However, neither approach alone seemed sufficient to fully address the complexities of psychological safety in online learning. I wanted to capture both the breadth of student experiences through quantitative measures and the depth of individual perspectives through qualitative data. This led me to adopt a mixed-methods approach, which aligns with pragmatic knowledge claims and allows for both open- and closed-ended data collection methods.

To support my project, I have developed the following materials:

Data collection method	Mode of delivery
Questionnaire	JISC (online survey)
Semi-structured interview	MS Teams

Data collection methods

I’ve included a copy of the questionnaire, the interview schedule and the interview slides for reference.

Questionnaire

Interview schedule and slides

References

Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Lenette, C. (2022) Participatory action research: ethics and decolonization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Neubauer, B., Witkop, C. and Varpio, L. (2019) ‘How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others’, Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), pp. 90–97. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2.

Nyemba, F. and Mayer, M. (2017) ‘Exploring the roots of participatory action research: An interview with Dr Marja-Liisa Swantz’, Action Research, 16(3), pp. 319–338. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316684003.

O’Reilly, J. (2024) Feedback on my ethical action plan.

Pauwels, L. (2019) ‘Visual elicitation in interviews’, in Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Cernat, A., Sakshaug, J.W. and Williams, R.A. (eds) SAGE research methods foundations. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036846496 (Accessed: 14 October 2024).